Talk:Laki

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Volcanic hairs

  • can someone confirm or deny that "volcanic hairs" as written in the quote are the same as "Pele's hair" (see entry in wiki') and link if necessary? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.40.43.133 (talk) 15:36, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Volcanic hair" is the same as the more common name "Pele's Hair" - fine strands of volcanic glass and common at most effusive eruptions.The Geologist (talk) 18:38, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have linked it. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:23, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

American Revolution Ended On the Same Year (1783)

Was the eruption's devastating effect on Europe a contributing factor to British surrender?

Sean7phil (talk) 02:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, the treaty had been signed well before the volcano erupted.David Trochos (talk) 05:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Well, although the fissures are only recorded to erupt once, I belive they may once more erupt, or the lava may even find its way to the mountian itself....The Laki Fissure Erutions of 1783-1784 are very interesting. The effects on weather went as far as freezing over the Missisippi River at New Orleans, and allowing ice skating at the Charleston Harbor.if the Laki fissures erupt agian, the effects on the entire world will be extravigant.

Benjamin Franklin is quoted "... that other volcano which arose out of the sea near that island..." Was this part of Vestmannaeryjar and the dozen or so lumps stretching to the mainland and Surtsey ? I can't find any detail on Google.

It was called Nyey or Nyoe, and it was on the direct line of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, to the south-west of Reykjanes. David Trochos (talk) 05:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Percentages

25%–33% seems to give a very precise range for what I suspect is an approximation for the fraction of the population killed in the 1780s eruption. Perhaps a quarter to a third might be better wording. Bazza 13:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"In all the population of Iceland decreased by just over 10,500 from the end of 1783 to the end of 1786 - from 49,753 to 39,190, to be precise." - Gunnar Karlsson (2000). Iceland's 1100 Years, p. 181. Limited preview available at Google Books. Haukur 13:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In which case the range should be replaced with a single value and referenced with the text you have kindly provided, which I have done. Bazza 12:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Confused

"a surplus harvest in 1785 that caused poverty for rural workers"

Is this right? I can't see the causation between a surplus harvest and poverty.--Malcohol 14:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grain is both a sustenance and cash crop. A surplus harvest decreases prices for grain. Large/local estates can supply all the grain the cities need, so the 'cash saleable component' of the small farmers' harvest is either 'not required' by the market or sold at significantly lower price. Not forgetting that the landlords also owned or dominated both the processing (wind-mills) and distribution (horses and carts) chains. Only from a consumer-centric or urban viewpoint are surpluses an unalloyed 'good thing'. Autodidactyl 12:03, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Thanks.--Malcohol 13:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


You've answered your own question.. A surplus would drop the prices so low that farmers living on the already thin margins would receive relatively nothing for their crops and then begin to starve. Not everyone worked the 'sharecroppers' life in Europe at that time though many were in servitude. Land barons still wanted their rents and when the markets were flooded with plenty of everything that never lasts very long. Produce is perishable and always has been, but prices once they drop tend to stay that way for quite some time until all the stores stocks run out. In the meantime people starved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mram50 (talk • contribs) 05:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

disambiguation page

This article needs a disambiguation page. 'Laki' is also my nickname :O) Lakinekaki 04:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No disambiguation needed. Your name is not Lakigigar, which is what this page is about.The Geologist (talk) 18:40, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fluorine vs fluoride

I went through and changed the references of fluorine to either hydrogen fluoride or hydrofluoric acid. HF is the compound mentioned in the citations, not F2. Delmlsfan (talk) 03:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Laki system, Grímsvötnand and Thórdarhyrna volcanos

"Laki is part of a volcanic system, centering on the Grímsvötn volcano and including the Eldgjá canyon, Thórdarhyrna and Katla volcanos." This statement was here unreferenced and unchallenged before my wikipedia time. User Brigt (talk • contribs) challenged it, as IP address and as his first contribution. Without references to support it, at first.

GVP states the Laki fissure belongs to the central volcano Grímsvötn and that the Eldgjá canyon belongs to the Katla volcano. Strangely, Laki is southernly as Eldgjá. The image draws these two systems separated, citing pages 12-13 of Surtsey Nomination Report 2007. Actually T. Thordarson and G. Larsen (2007) has a similar picture. User Brigt claims "Iceland : Katla Volcano". Iceland on the web. Retrieved 2010-03-26. is a tourist information page and it is citing wikipedia.

This citation (Gudmundsson, Magnús T. (January 2007). "Volcanic systems and calderas in the Vatnajökull region, central Iceland: Constraints on crustal structure from gravity data". Journal of Geodynamics. 43 (1): 153–169. doi:10.1016/j.jog.2006.09.015. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)) claims that Vonarskarð-Hágöngur, Bárðarbunga-Veiðivötn, Grímsvötn-Laki, and to a lesser extent Kverkfjöll are distinct features and "the central volcanoes of Vonarskarð and Hágöngur belong to the same volcanic system; this also applies to Bárðarbunga and Hamarinn, and Grímsvötn and Þórðarhyrna."

This citation ("Volcanism in Iceland in historical time: Volcano types, eruption styles and eruptive history". Journal of Geodynamics. 43 (1): 118–152. January 2007. doi:10.1016/j.jog.2006.09.005. {{cite journal}}: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors= (help)) classifies Iceland's volcanism as follow: "Reykjanes, West and North Volcanic Zones (RVZ, WVZ, NVZ) and the East Volcanic Zone (EVZ). These zones are connected across central Iceland by the Mid-Iceland Belt (MIB). Other volcanically active areas are the two intraplate belts of Öræfajökull (ÖVB) and Snæfellsnes (SVB)." And it states: "About 80% of the verified eruptions took place on the EVZ where the four most active volcanic systems (Grímsvötn, Bárdarbunga–Veidivötn, Hekla and Katla) are located."

Map all coordinates using OpenStreetMap

Download coordinates as:

Locations:

Possible question on reference

Someone corrected the footnote on http://acatte.perso.neuf.fr/Iceland_Laki_in_english.htm . Thanks.

I was attempting to verify whether people generally measured temperature reliably over an area as large as New England when the fisure occured. The reference says (and is quoted here) that this was the longest period of sub-zero weather (Fahrenheit assumption?) in that area. Is this a reliable statement? Couldn't find anything to support it in my favorite reference work, Wikipedia!  :) Partially the fault of our fellow-editors who are more interested in individuals than in general use history. Student7 (talk) 12:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And, having said that, the possibly glib statement (with great pictures) might pertain to some of the other statements as well? Student7 (talk) 12:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To keep track of the temperature is something quite recent. Below zero means below freezing, rather here, I bet. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 12:27, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily. Keeping thermometers, barometers and other instruments was something of a fashion among the educated gentry by the 18th century. Certainly, in England there are recordings from multiple stations of daily temperatures in degrees Fahrenehit (some of which are included in the famous Central England Temperature dataset, which goes right back to the mid-17th century). David Trochos (talk) 06:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Below zero" - Fahrenheit or Celsius? My guess is Fahrenheit, but I may be wrong and don't want to include guesswork in Wikipedia. Floozybackloves (talk) 03:37, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Almost invariably Fahrenheit, but thermometers were produced by various sources and not all used the freezing and boiling points accurately hence the graduations could be misaligned. This can be shown in many recordings made a few miles apart which showed large discrepancies in temperature. Now all thermometers are supposedly produced to the same standard and almost invariably the scientific world uses either Celsius or Kelvin. In 1784 the temperatures used were amogst others Fahrenheit, Centigrade - defined by Celsius as being 100 points between the freezing point - 0 and 100 boiling point of water.The Geologist (talk) 18:20, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

History Channel Reference?

Is there another reference for the claims of numbers of persons killed due to the eruption? I have seen these numbers propagated on lists of deadly natural disasters referencing this article, and to find these eye catching numbers are linked to a History Channel citation is a bit, well, unscholarly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.74.198.85 (talk) 13:39, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Links

There appears to be a couple of the external links dead. I didn't want to just delete them in case an interested party might want to check further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.121.245.174 (talk) 04:28, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bizarre math error

120,000,000 long tons is 121,925,629.056 tonnes, so it ought to be rounded to 122,000,000 tonnes; I was going to fix that because it looks stupid as it is, but I see that the conversion is automated. Not sure what's going wrong. 64.71.2.189 (talk) 19:50, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's just a matter of how many significant digits are shown. de Bivort 21:20, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merger of Móðuharðindin into Laki

  • Oppose. The Móðuharðindin article describes a huge natural disaster which killed tens of thousands of people around Europe. It must be notable and merits its own article. However, I am uneasy about the name Móðuharðindin, which really cannot be the best name for the event from English-language reliable sources. Moonraker (talk) 01:15, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I proposed the merger was that most of the Laki article seems to be about the 1783 eruption and its effects. So isn't there a lot of overlap and duplication? Might my merger suggestion be the wrong way around? Might it be better to prune this Laki article of the eruption event? Feline Hymnic (talk) 22:04, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's a fair bit of research on Laki that does not focus on 1783. This could form the basis of an expansion of this article, but I don't have the expertise to put it together. de Bivort 05:59, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Favor. There's almost nothing in this article that isn't in the one on the Laki eruption (really, only the translation of "Mist Hardships" into Icelandic), and quite a bit of material specific to the Mist Hardships is in Laki but not here, in particular a description of the observed effects of the eruption (exposed livestock flesh turning yellow, tepid blue water, etc.). I would have no objection to expanding the Móðuharðindin article and moving such information to it, but it would be easier, and probably a better use of organization, to expand the "Consequences in Iceland" paragraph in the Laki article. The only really sound reason for having a Móðuharðindin article in the first place is to describe its effects on Iceland in enough length, detail, and Icelandic specificity to warrant a separate article; I was surprised when I read it to see how little of this there was. Unless someone's willing to develop this into something worthy of a stand-alone article (and I note that the Icelandic-language version of the Móðuharðindin article is even shorter than the English), the physical effects and worldwide effects of the Laki eruption should all be in the Laki article (with a subparagraph on effects in Iceland), while the specifically Icelandic aspects should be in the History of Iceland article, which I note has an extremely skimpy but nevertheless discrete paragraph on the Mist Hardships that could do with some filling out. Links to Mist Hardships should be corrected to go to one or the other as appropriate. Scutigera (talk) 17:01, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"... The Laki eruption and its aftermath caused a drop in global temperatures."

Hmmm. Looking at the graph in Medieval_Warm_Period, around about 1783 there was a significant RISE in global temperatures. What's the story here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.166.81.234 (talk) 09:33, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The drop in global temperatures would have been only during the years of the eruption, and maybe the year after. It appears difficult to pinpoint just a couple years climate change on the graph linked above, in which I can only gather climate trends on the order of more like decades at best. In other words, the eruption may have caused one of those little downward spikes during late 18th century where the otherwise general trend was a rising of global temperatures. Or...the eruption's effect may not be visible at all at this graph's scale. --RacerX11 Talk to meStalk me 10:23, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, RacerX, you're right. But I have since discovered that there were other things, also massive, happening at the end of the 18th century. So there is probably no relationship between this particular event and that rise. 58.166.81.234 (talk) 11:17, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

global fatalities from Laki eruption

I watched a documentary on WNED Buffalo tonight (10:00 PM June 12, 2013) entitled "Nature's Power Revealed: Power of Fire". It stated that two million people died worldwide as a result of the effects of the eruption. Of course, I have no idea of their source . . . the video was produced by Reader's Digest (sic).Mathyeti (talk) 03:15, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

USA & Canada 1784 winter

Title

If, as the article states, "Lakagígar is the correct name", then why is that not the title of the article? 109.152.148.31 (talk) 02:03, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think the article should be named "Lakagígar" or even "Skaftáreldar". Laki, (the mountain that was already there before the eruption), was pretty much the only part of the fissure that didn't erupt. So, the eruption was in the fissure that became known as Lakagígar, but NOT in the mountain Laki itself. When Icelanders refer to the place of the eruption, they say "Lakagígar", but when referring to the eruption itself, the say "Skaftáreldar", (bad direct English translation "Skaftá's fires"). Skaftá runs in the river bed that much of the lava flowed in downhill. "The Laki eruption" is (in at least some way) an incorrect way of referring to the eruption. However, "the Laki craters" is a usable (direct) translation of the name of the eruption site. Siggi31 (talk) 23:48, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For whatever reason, "the Laki eruption" seems to be the most usual way to refer to the 1783 event (probably the most common reason that readers seek out this article) in the English-speaking world [1][2][3]. This article isn't only about the eruption, however, so the renaming would be fine as long as we do a good job referencing that name. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 14:02, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How has the name still not been corrected? Let us look at the first two sentences of the article: "Laki or Lakagígar (Craters of Laki) is a volcanic fissure in the south of Iceland." and "Lakagígar is the correct name, as Laki mountain itself did not erupt." The first sentence equates the two, which is ridiculous, one is a mountain and the other a system of craters. It would be acceptable if the article was clearly about both, but it is all about eruptions from the craters. If "the Laki eruption" is the most usual way to refer to the 1783 event in English, it is about time to correct that mistake, not perpetuate it just because there is some precedence. 153.92.130.81 (talk) 01:37, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Laki. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:18, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction: VEI 4 or 6?

The section “1783 eruption” first states that the eruption rated at 4, but in the next paragraph states that it was rated at 6.

The Global Volcanism Program says it was a VEI 4 on their page, under Grímsvötn eruption history. ZFT (talk) 21:35, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested article for 1783 eruption

Should the 1783 eruption be given its own article? This one seems like a no brainer, it's a significant historical eruption and the section on this eruption is very long. Mrmp2402 (talk) 07:58, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Until August 2014 there was an eruption article at Móðuharðindin. But at that time it was quite small (check its history) so it seems to have been merged into Laki, which was also small. A case may be made for its becoming renewing that separation. But that would leave this Laki article very small. I would suggest either leaving things as they are or building up the non-eruption part of this Laki article so that it can survive on its own. Feline Hymnic (talk) 08:26, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Laki"